Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

I don't see an Eschatology section, so I'll post this here...(Mods, if there is a more appropriate section, please move the thread there).

I don't see an Eschatology section, so I'll post this here...(Mods, if there is a more appropriate section, please move the thread there).

Revelation 20:4-5 NASBS
[4] Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. [5] The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

For those who hold to an Amillennial position, (usually stated as an indefinite amount of time starting from the cross to Christ's return), who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?

I don't see an Eschatology section, so I'll post this here...(Mods, if there is a more appropriate section, please move the thread there).

Revelation 20:4-5 NASBS
[4] Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. [5] The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

For those who hold to an Amillennial position, (usually stated as an indefinite amount of time starting from the cross to Christ's return), who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?

Also they say that the millennial reign is spiritual, but why would it be for only a 1000 years, when Jesus has been ruling ever since He ascended to heaven, which He said all power is given unto Him in heaven and earth, which is more than a thousand years.

There will be a physical reign of Christ on earth along with the saints, all in glorified bodies.

Which the Bible says that the LORD shall be King over all the earth, and in that day there shall be one LORD, and His name one, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the water cover the seas.

Which means when Jesus reigns on earth the heathen shall acknowledge no other god, or religious figure, but only Jesus.

And the heathen have to go up year after year to worship the LORD, and keep the feast of tabernacles to be right with God.

Which we know this has not happened that the whole world only acknowledged Jesus, and the heathen went to Jerusalem every year to worship Him.

Also there will be peace on earth in which the animals will not fight with animals, and be plant eaters, and people will not fight with each other, and animals and people will not fear each other, and the sucking child can play with the most ferocious animal on the planet, and that animal will have no desire to hurt the child.

Which we know this has not happened, and it is speaking of being on earth, not in heaven, for there is no sucking child in heaven, for all the people have glorified bodies, and put off the flesh, so there is no child and adult to differentiate between.

Also they say that the millennial reign is spiritual, but why would it be for only a 1000 years, when Jesus has been ruling ever since He ascended to heaven, which He said all power is given unto Him in heaven and earth, which is more than a thousand years.

Jesus will rule on earth for 1000 years.

The saints will be resurrected to heaven, which is the first resurrection, and then the world will attack Jerusalem, the Jews, and then the saints will come back with Jesus, for the Bible says the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with Him, and Jesus comes from heaven, and the saints come along with Him, and Jesus defeats the world, and saves the Jews.

For the Middle East peace treaty will cause all Jews to go to Israel, for the Gentile nations will cause it, and the man of sin wants them all back on their land, but God means it for good, and said He will leave none of them in the nations anymore.

When Jesus and the saints rule over the heathen that God spared at the battle of Armageddon for 1000 years, then the second resurrection happens, which is all the dead that rejected the truth, or never heard the truth, and they will be judged, which some of them can make it to be with God that did not hear the truth, or not sufficiently.

Jesus said until heaven and earth pass away, not one tittle, or jot, shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled.

Which Jesus had to fulfill the law by being a sinless man obeying all of God's holiness, and fulfilling all the roles of Israel, and things they did in the Old Testament, for He is the perfect King, perfect High Priest, Saint, Prophet, temple, sacrifice, and anything else He had to fulfill.

But He has not fulfilled the role of perfect King on earth yet, and it must be done on earth for it to be effective, for He came as a humble servant, and not as a King to rule on earth, so that is what the millennial reign on earth is about, so Jesus can fulfill the role of perfect King, and rule out of Jerusalem, and the kingdom restored back to the Jews.

It will be a millennial reign of Jesus on earth.

But some people will deny it even if the proof is there.

Nobody argues over a book like people that claim the Bible, for it is the most misinterpreted book in the history of mankind, for many people want to hear things their way, drag beliefs in to it that is not part of the Bible, and it becomes their foundation, and have a lack of knowledge of all the details of a doctrine.

When people believe what they want to believe it is hard to shake them from that.

It is obvious that there is going to be a physical reign of Jesus on earth over the heathen, even though He will be in a glorified body, but the heathen will be in the flesh.

People will argue with people concerning their denomination to the bitter end, and their denomination laid the foundation for them, and they believe it, and do not see the contradictions.

Amillenism is the rejection of the belief that Jesus will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth

who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?

I'm not amillennial. The 1000 years is figurative of the reign of the early church up to the destruction of Jerusalem (the whore city Babylon of John's apocalypse) in 70 AD.

I'm not amillennial. The 1000 years is figurative of the reign of the early church up to the destruction of Jerusalem (the whore city Babylon of John's apocalypse) in 70 AD.

as far the statement in REV. 25., we know from Scripture after Scripture that the First Resurrection
has already taken place, it has taken place a thousand years before.
the YLT is the only interpretation that we know of that carries a better understanding of this.
'and the rest of the dead did not live again till the thousand years may be finished; this is the first rising again.'

I'm not amillennial. The 1000 years is figurative of the reign of the early church up to the destruction of Jerusalem (the whore city Babylon of John's apocalypse) in 70 AD.

as far the statement in REV. 25., we know from Scripture after Scripture that the First Resurrection has already taken place, it has taken place a thousand years before.

the YLT is the only interpretation that we know of that carries a better understanding of this.
'and the rest of the dead did not live again till the thousand years may be finished; this is the first rising again.'

I don't have a dog leg for either side of this crap between you Baptist's and don't really care one way or another.

But I do love to read and research like I do with our blessed Holy Scripture. And I just don't accept the first thing I read, but go into greater depths until I understand these can be debunked or can be viewed as absolute truths. I have yet to look into the Amill side of things yet, but have found some interesting facts towards John Calvin himself.

Here they are:

I WOULD NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING CALVIN SAID, MYSELF, WHEN YOU KNOW THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT HIM!!


John Calvin's homosexuality? Oxford historical theologian and principal of the evangelical Wycliffe Hall, Alister McGrath, reviews The Early Reformation on the Continent by Owen Chadwick in the Times Literary Supplement (June 14). Noting that Calvin “attracted eulogy and vilification in equal measure,” McGrath writes: “Jerome Bolsec, with whom Calvin crossed swords in 1551, went on to publish a scurrilous (but highly entertaining) life of Calvin in 1577. His subject, according to Bolsec, was irredeemably tedious and malicious, bloodthirsty and frustrated. He treated his own words as if they were the word of God, and allowed himself to be worshipped by his followers. In addition to frequently engaging in homosexual activity, he had an undiscriminating habit of indulging himself sexually with any female within walking distance. Thus, according to Bolsec, Calvin resigned his benefices at Noyon on account of the public exposure of his homosexuality.” According to McGrath: “Bolsec's biography makes much more interesting reading than the more deferential biographies of Theodore Beza [Calvin's cohort who was, himself, accused of homosexuality] and Nicolas Colladon.”

In Leiden historian Alastair Hamilton's review of Bernard Cottret's new Calvin biography (in the same issue of the TLS), he grants that “Despite the number of studies and biographies which continue to appear on John Calvin, the man himself remains elusive.” He affirms: “Calvin is all but entirely concealed behind his theological writings.”


Calvin was a CLOSET QUEER, enjoyed several men and women, so he was being BI-SEXUAL. He spoke as if he was God, and never stopped those from worshiping him as if he was God.

If this faggot actually believed in predestination, then he should have understood his was on the path towards the Lake of Fire!!




MORE FACTS:


(1) in 1527, the year he was 18, Calvin was arrested, tried, and convicted of homosexual activity. Instead of being executed (per French law at the time), he was branded with a fleur-de-lis on one of his shoulders.

(2) In 1551, a Catholic controversialist revealed that the archives of the city of Noyon, Calvin’s birth place, contain the record of a condemnation against Calvin, at age 18, for sodomy. He had by then already received the tonsure. His parents obtained clemency from the bishop, so that instead of being condemned to death as the law demanded, he was branded as a sign of infamy. The Catholic controversialist presented the evidence signed by all the eminent personages of the city. The English scholar Stapleton went there to examine the archives during Calvin’s lifetime, and vouched for the fact. The contemporary German Lutherans spoke of it as an established fact (Schlusselburg, Theologie calvinienne).



What an example to set up the House of God in

https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/was-calvin-a-homosexual-convict/

Please, this thread is not called The National Enquirer.